AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff appealed from the district court's order dismissing his complaint. The specifics of the complaint and the events leading to the appeal are not detailed in the provided text.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The complaint filed by the Plaintiff was dismissed.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: The Plaintiff's submissions or specific arguments in response to the court's notice of proposed disposition are not detailed, except for an indication that he did not address the court's proposed conclusions or respond to the rationale for affirmance. Additionally, the Plaintiff attempted to move for sanctions in his memorandum in opposition, which was not considered as it was not made to the district court (paras 2-3).
• Defendants-Appellees: Specific arguments made by the Defendants-Appellees are not provided in the text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint should be affirmed.
• Whether the Plaintiff's request for sanctions in his memorandum in opposition is properly before the Court.

Disposition

• The appeal from the district court's order dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint is affirmed.

Reasons

• Per ATTREP, Chief Judge (YOHALEM, J., and BACA, J., concurring):
  The Plaintiff's failure to specifically address the court's proposed conclusions or respond to the rationale for affirmance led to the affirmation of the district court's dismissal of his complaint. The repetition of earlier arguments or failure to point out errors of law and fact does not fulfill the requirement to challenge a summary calendar notice (para 2).
  The Plaintiff's request for sanctions in his memorandum in opposition was not considered by the Court as it was not made to the district court, and thus, was not properly before the Court (para 2).
  The memorandum in opposition contained baseless and vituperative accusations against the Court and the New Mexico judiciary, which were not considered. The Court warned that including such accusations in future pleadings might result in the Court not considering or rejecting the Plaintiff’s pleadings altogether (para 3).